4.1 Review

Inhaled Delivery of Anti-Pseudomonal Phages to Tackle Respiratory Infections Caused by Superbugs

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jamp.2021.0045

关键词

inhaled bacteriophage therapy; liquid formulation; powder formulation; respiratory infection; superbugs

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP150103953]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1140617]
  3. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [R21AI121627, R33AI121627]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies have shown that inhaled bacteriophage therapy, particularly with PEV phages and powder formulations, has the potential to effectively combat respiratory infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria.
Background: Respiratory infections are increasingly difficult to treat due to the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Rediscovery and implementation of inhaled bacteriophage (phage) therapy as a standalone or supplement to antibiotic therapy is becoming recognized as a promising solution to combating respiratory infections caused by these superbugs. To ensure maximum benefit of the treatment, phages must remain stable during formulation as a liquid or powder and delivery using a nebulizer or dry powder inhaler. Methods: Pseudomonas-targeting PEV phages were used as model phages to assess the feasibility of aerosolizing biologically viable liquid formulations using commercial nebulizers in the presence and absence of inhaled antibiotics. The advantages of powder formulations were exploited by spray drying to produce inhalable powders containing PEV phages with and without the antibiotic ciprofloxacin. Results: The produced phage PEV20 and PEV20-ciprofloxacin powders remained stable over long-term storage and exhibited significant bacterial killing activities in a mouse lung infection model. Conclusion: These studies demonstrated that inhaled phage (-antibiotic) therapy has the potential to tackle respiratory infections caused by superbugs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据